Read it as A = The 1%, political and business elites, who make the decisions, and know they stay there due to all the people who support them because they are in the 50% of the population who don't lose out so much due to their decisions. And B = the minority of people who are losing out to the decisions of A.
When B gets shafted this many times over, it doesn't take a majority of the population to get the protest vote option to succeed. It just takes enough to add to the votes of the racists and other deplorables to get past 50% in Florida and North Carolina.
I am eagerly awaiting the post election analysis. This morning I already heard one commentator opine on how the big win for Republicans last night is actually bad for them. I have never known one party control of government being a bad thing for the party in control. It is certainly bad for the opposition party and possibly for the people but not for those in power!
I have been hearing that the blue states that turned did so because the rural voters came out and voted.
I expect someone from the Sanders wing of the party to run in 2020. Could be Warren, depending on what she does in the coming years.
The only argument for this win being bad, in some sense, for Republicans, is that the 2018 elections are a big setup for the 2020 redistricting, which will do much of the work to decide control of the country for an entire decade. Many Republicans hoped they'd get Hillary, who is pretty palatable for them since she's not that far left, and then 2018 would be even easier for them, since the incumbent party statistically struggled in midterms.
Now that's not to say this is smart logic. Republicans will just have to continue working hard at the local level through 2018 and 2020. I'm sure they are happy to have won, but now they have their work cut out for them if they want to enact their full evil master plans out past 2030.
Looking at all the races there are some interesting results. How did Clinton win Vermont when the Republicans took the governorship? I know split ticket voting is a thing but in that case it is about a 15 point gap between Clinton's votes and the Democratic governor.
There is no presidential popular vote in the US. We have state by state elections. The electoral college works as it is designed. This is a feature not a bug!
The electoral college works as it is designed. This is a feature not a bug!
Not entirely. Some states bind the electors to the popular vote. This is not how it was originally designed; electors were very specifically supposed to be able to override the will of the people.
Because it's a hybrid system now, those states with bound electors have a different voicing structure than states without. That compromises the system and makes it effectively useless.
Either abolish it or restore it, but don't tell me it functions the way it was intended to function. We know better.
There is no presidential popular vote in the US. We have state by state elections. The electoral college works as it is designed. This is a feature not a bug!
The electoral college is an idiotic idea that has no place in the 21st century. "Working as designed" doesn't mean it was a good idea in the first place. This is a bug because the value of people's votes should not change based on where they live!
There is no presidential popular vote in the US. We have state by state elections. The electoral college works as it is designed. This is a feature not a bug!
The electoral college is an idiotic idea that has no place in the 21st century. "Working as designed" doesn't mean it was a good idea in the first place. This is a bug because the value of people's votes should not change based on where they live!
Being a pedant is a nice distraction from being sad.
It was a pretty good idea in the first place, the whole thing about when the system was created information moved at the speed of a horse. You wanted some dude who knew what you wanted near where the votes were actually being cast who had up to date info on what was happening and could cast an informed vote that you couldn't as you only had info that was 2 weeks old.
Here's what happened from my perspective: This was simply put angry white people, most of them old, refusing to acknowledge that they don't own the world anymore and everybody has to cater to their wishes at everybody else's expense. They live in fear that the mexican or the black guy three towns over has it as good as themselves, which of course must in turn mean that the person either stole it from some other "good white guy" or that their personal stake has somehow diminished. So they voted for another angry white guy who promised them the moon, will inevitably deliver a pile of shit and they will again blame everybody but themselves for it.
The Electoral College was designed to give White Farmers who lived in the middle of nowhere more control over the government. In that sense, it is working as designed. Either junk it or stop pretending that the USA for anybody other than rich white people.
What I really don't understand is the low turnout. Lowest since 2000. That is not something I expected. I honestly believe this would be a good turnout and it seemed like Clinton had a good Get Out The Vote campaign going. This was simply a failure of decent people letting their country taken from them because they were too lazy to get their ass to a polling place.
There is no presidential popular vote in the US. We have state by state elections. The electoral college works as it is designed. This is a feature not a bug!
The electoral college is an idiotic idea that has no place in the 21st century. "Working as designed" doesn't mean it was a good idea in the first place. This is a bug because the value of people's votes should not change based on where they live!
The electoral college is the same principle as the DNC superdelegates - to overturn the will of the voting public when they decide to do something "stupid" (i.e. that threatens established politics).
The thing is, this election cycle perfectly demonstrates why that principle is sometimes required. The voting public put forth a Republic presidential candidate that is heinously unqualified, and they had no mechanism to stop it.
That mechanism could exist in the electoral college, but doesn't exist effectively because some states outright require electors to enact the will of the people.
This basically reinforces the importance of battleground states. If you have some electors who can choose and some who can't, you focus on securing the votes of those who can't and let the rest of the electors do their thing. This is what has been happening very consistently in our elections for some time now.
By having inconsistent voting power across the country reinforced by partial direct democracy, you create power disparities that effectively wipe out a huge chunk of voting power. It's tyranny of the majority, except that we're only looking at a subset of the majority at any given time - effectively creating an elite ruling class of voters who have to be catered to in order to be effective.
We need to either restore the electoral college to its original state and accept that an elite class will override us from time to time, or jump on the total direct democracy ship and hope that the majority doesn't marginalize the minority.
What gets me is how many white women voted for Trump. What about basic self-respect?
Were they Republican, Democratic, or unaffiliated women? Because that is an important part of the answer.
From what I am hearing a lot of voters wanted a continuation of Obama policies with a shift leftward yet, they voted for Trump? It sounds weird but Trump went left of Clinton on some issues.
Here's what happened from my perspective: This was simply put angry white people, most of them old, refusing to acknowledge that they don't own the world anymore and everybody has to cater to their wishes at everybody else's expense. They live in fear that the mexican or the black guy three towns over has it as good as themselves, which of course must in turn mean that the person either stole it from some other "good white guy" or that their personal stake has somehow diminished. So they voted for another angry white guy who promised them the moon, will inevitably deliver a pile of shit and they will again blame everybody but themselves for it.
Hillary also did worse than expected with a lot of minority groups.
The only bright side to any of this would be if Trump was convicted of a felony. That would disqualify him from office and put Pence in charge. Pence is no prize either, but I'm grasping at straws here.
The only bright side to any of this would be if Trump was convicted of a felony. That would disqualify him from office and put Pence in charge. Pence is no prize either, but I'm grasping at straws here.
Ahh... No. Only a Constitutional amendment can alter the qualifications for President.
The only bright side to any of this would be if Trump was convicted of a felony. That would disqualify him from office and put Pence in charge. Pence is no prize either, but I'm grasping at straws here.
Pence is worse. At least the republicans hate Trump, and he's unpredictable.
The only bright side to any of this would be if Trump was convicted of a felony. That would disqualify him from office and put Pence in charge. Pence is no prize either, but I'm grasping at straws here.
Ahh... No. Only a Constitutional amendment can alter the qualifications for President.
Article II Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
He has upcoming trials of Child Rape, Fraud, and possibly Bribery of public officials, those are high Crimes. If he's actually convicted of one of them that would impact his ability to hold office.
The only bright side to any of this would be if Trump was convicted of a felony. That would disqualify him from office and put Pence in charge. Pence is no prize either, but I'm grasping at straws here.
Ahh... No. Only a Constitutional amendment can alter the qualifications for President.
Article II Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
He has upcoming trials of Child Rape, Fraud, and possibly Bribery of public officials, those are high Crimes. If he's actually convicted of one of them that would impact his ability to hold office.
Wouldn't those crimes have to occur while he is in office?
The only bright side to any of this would be if Trump was convicted of a felony. That would disqualify him from office and put Pence in charge. Pence is no prize either, but I'm grasping at straws here.
Ahh... No. Only a Constitutional amendment can alter the qualifications for President.
Article II Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
He has upcoming trials of Child Rape, Fraud, and possibly Bribery of public officials, those are high Crimes. If he's actually convicted of one of them that would impact his ability to hold office.
Apart from being impeached, a sitting President has immunity and cannot be prosecuted for any crime while in office. In 1973, the Attorney General concluded that the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
Comments
Now that's not to say this is smart logic. Republicans will just have to continue working hard at the local level through 2018 and 2020. I'm sure they are happy to have won, but now they have their work cut out for them if they want to enact their full evil master plans out past 2030.
In Utah she came in third place!
This is why you should care about politics.
Because it's a hybrid system now, those states with bound electors have a different voicing structure than states without. That compromises the system and makes it effectively useless.
Either abolish it or restore it, but don't tell me it functions the way it was intended to function. We know better.
It was a pretty good idea in the first place, the whole thing about when the system was created information moved at the speed of a horse. You wanted some dude who knew what you wanted near where the votes were actually being cast who had up to date info on what was happening and could cast an informed vote that you couldn't as you only had info that was 2 weeks old.
The thing is, this election cycle perfectly demonstrates why that principle is sometimes required. The voting public put forth a Republic presidential candidate that is heinously unqualified, and they had no mechanism to stop it.
That mechanism could exist in the electoral college, but doesn't exist effectively because some states outright require electors to enact the will of the people.
This basically reinforces the importance of battleground states. If you have some electors who can choose and some who can't, you focus on securing the votes of those who can't and let the rest of the electors do their thing. This is what has been happening very consistently in our elections for some time now.
By having inconsistent voting power across the country reinforced by partial direct democracy, you create power disparities that effectively wipe out a huge chunk of voting power. It's tyranny of the majority, except that we're only looking at a subset of the majority at any given time - effectively creating an elite ruling class of voters who have to be catered to in order to be effective.
We need to either restore the electoral college to its original state and accept that an elite class will override us from time to time, or jump on the total direct democracy ship and hope that the majority doesn't marginalize the minority.
From what I am hearing a lot of voters wanted a continuation of Obama policies with a shift leftward yet, they voted for Trump? It sounds weird but Trump went left of Clinton on some issues.
If you have not read this, read it now: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ this writer gets it.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
He has upcoming trials of Child Rape, Fraud, and possibly Bribery of public officials, those are high Crimes. If he's actually convicted of one of them that would impact his ability to hold office.
If he beats both charges he has a law firm run by Satan.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222.pdf
If Trump can screw up just enough (but no so much as to genuinely endanger the country) it makes the midterms a better fight for Democrats.